' This revision petition is filed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Mardan at Takhtbai, dated 14-6-1999, whereby appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court of Civil Judge, Takhtbai, dated, 10-12-1996 was maintained.
2. Facts of the case are that respondents Nos.1 to 8 who are the heirs of Fazal Qayum Khan filed a declaratory suit against the petitioners in respect of Khasra Nos.741, 743, 744/1 comprised in Khata No,239/478 and 479 as per Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 of the Revenue Estate Ahmad Abad, Tehsil and District Mardan, measuring 54 Kanals, 12 Marlas on the basis of registered Sale-deed, dated 7-6-1945 which was incorporated in Revenue Record through Mutation No,474 attested on 28-1-1946. They also challenged the validity of sale Mutation No,540 attested on 13-6-1956 and the registered sale-deed in favour of petitioners bearing No,785 dated 3-5-1997 which was incorporated in Revenue Record through Mutation No,616 attested on 25-11-1957. Also challenged Tamleek Mutation No,736 attested on 29-7-1987, Tamleek Mutation No,1738 attested on 9-3-1987, the Mortgage Mutation No,1556 attested on 28-12-1983, Mortgage Mutation No,1758 attested on 22- 8-1987, Mortgage Mutation No,1799 attested on 5-9-1988 and Mortgage Mutation No,1840 attested on 22-4-1989. In the averments of plaint, it is alleged that the suit-land measuring 54 Kanals, 12 Marlas was owned and possessed by Mst. Khanam Jan which was devolved upon Abdul Hameed and this fact is evident from Jamabandi for the year 1925-26. Abdul Hameed subsequently, transferred the entire suit-land to Fazal Qayum through registered Sale-deed No,1012, dated 7-4- 1945. The registered sale-deed was incorporated in Revenue Record through Mutation No,474 attested on 28-1-1946. It was further alleged that the entry in the Revenue Record to the effect that Mst. Khanam Jan and after her Abdul Hameed was wrongly recorded without possession while in fact the suit-land is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the petitioners/defendants are tenants under them. Taking benefit of the wrong entries in the Revenue Record, the defendants have allegedly executed the sale-deed and various mutations in the Revenue Record as noted earlier. The petitioners/defendants denied the title of plaintiffs/ respondents Nos.1 to 8 which necessitated the filing of instant litigation.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants through written statement wherein apart from raising a number of legal objections, the factual assertions made in the plaint were denied.
The trial Court framed the following issues arising from pleadings of the parties:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the suit is competent in its present form?
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(4) Whether the suit is within time?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue?
(6) Whether the defendants have matured their title over the suit-land by adverse possession for more, than twelve years?
(7) Whether the rights of defendants Nos.3 to 18 are protected by section 41 of T.P. Act?
(8) Whether the defendants have improved the status of the suit-land, if so, to what extent?
(9) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit-land through Deed No,1012, dated 7- 6-1945 on the basis of which Mutation No,474 attested on 28-1-1946 was attested in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs?
(10) Whether Mutation No,540, dated 13-6-1956, No,616, dated 25-11-1957, Deed No,1736, dated 4-7- 1987, Mutation No,1738, dated 9-3-1987 by defendants Nos.2, 3, 5 and 21 in favour of defendants Nos.6 to 18 and Mutation No,1556, dated 28-12-1983, No,1619, dated 11-3-1985, No,1758, dated 22-8- 1987, No,1791, dated 9-1-1988, No,1799, dated 5-9-1988, No,1840, dated 22-4-1989 by defendants Nos.6, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 20 in favour of defendants Nos.19 and 20 are wrong, illegal, forged fictitious and are ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs and entries in the Revenue Record are wrong in the names of defendants?
(11) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(12) Relief.
4. The plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 8 produced Patwari Halqa as P.W.1, sub-Registrar, Mardan as P.W.2, Abdul Qayum A.D.K., Mardan as P.W.3, Abbas Khan Patwari Halqa P.W.4 (he was also examined as P.W.1 but for bringing on record certain mutations he was re-examined in the trial Court), and Fida Muhammad Khan one of the plaintiffs as P.W.S. Thereafter, they closed their evidence.
5. The petitioners/defendants in order to discharge their liability and to the facts agitated in the written statement produced Ubaidullah Khan, Second Officer Cooperative Bank as D.W.1, Ajab Khan, Assistant Director, Agriculture Bank as D.W.2, Inayatullah Khan Lumberdar as D.W.3, Munasib Khan, Patwari Irrigation Department as D.W.4, Tawoos Khan H.V.C. Irrigation Department as D.W.5 and Faqeer one of the defendants/petitioners as D.W.6 and closed their evidence.
6. The trial Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence of the parties decreed the suit as prayed for. The disputed mutations were set aside with no order as to cost. Feeling aggrieved from the decree, the petitioners preferred an appeal which was assigned for disposal to Additional District Judge who dismissed the same vide his judgment, dated 14-6-1999, hence this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners has also submitted an application for filing certain documents under this Court directions, dated 26-3-2003. Alongwith the application, the petitioners have appended Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 relating to the suit-land as Exh.P.W.1/1, Jamabandi for the year 1933-34 as Exh.P.W.1/2, Jamabandi for the year 1941-42 (Exh.P.W.1/3), Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 (Exh.P.W.1/4), Jamabandi for the year 1957-58 (Exh.P.W.1/5), Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 (Exh.P.W.1/6), Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 (Exh.P.W.1/7), Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Exh.P.W.118), Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1978 to Kharif 1983 (Exh.P.W.1/9).Aks Shajra Kishtwar Mouza Ahmadabad (Exh.P.W.1/10), Jamabandi for the year 1925-26 (Exh.P.W.1/11), Jamabandi for the year 1929-30 (Exh.P.W.1/12), Jamabandi for the year 1933-34 (Exh.P.W.1/13), Jamabandi for the year 1937-38 (Exh.P.W.1/14), Jamabandi for the year 1941-42 (Exh.P.W.1/15), Jamabandi for the year 1948- 49 (Exh.P.W.1/16), Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 (Exh.P.W.1/17), Jamabandi for the year 1957-58 (Exh.P.W.1/18), Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 (Exh.P.W.1/19), Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 (Exh.P.W.1/20), Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 (Exh.P.W.1/21), Jamabandi for the year 1977-78, (Exh.P.W.1/22), Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Exh.P.W.1/23), Shajara-elNasb of Abdul Qadir Khan (Exh.P.W.1/24), Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1982 to Rabeegh 1986 (Exh.P.W.1/25), Goshwara-e- Milkiyat (Exh.P.W.1/27), Shajara-e-Nasb of Ali Muhammad son of Nawab Muhammad Akbar Khan (Exh.P.W.1/26), Shajara-e-Nasb of Nawabzada Muhammad Akbar Khan (Exh.P.W.1/28) and Goshwara-eMilkiyat as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Exh.P.W.1/29), copy of Mutation No,474 attested on 28-1-1946 (Exh.P.2/1), Mutation No,540 (Exh.P.W.1/D-1), Mutation No,616 attested on 25-11- 1957 (Exh.P.W.1/D-2), copy of Registry in favour of petitioners bearing No,788 attested on 3-5-1957 (Exh.P.W.2/D-1), Copy of Tamleek Mutation No,540 attested on 13-6-1950 (Exh.P.W.3/1), copy of Mutation No,616, attested on 25-11-1957 (Exh.P.W.3/2), copy of Mutation No,474 attested on 28-1- 1946 (Exh.P.W.3/3), Mortgage Mutation No,1556 attested on 28-12-1983 (Exh.P.W.4/1), Mortgage Mutation No,1619 attested on 11-3-1985 (Exh.P.W.4/2), Tamleek Mutation Tamleek No,1736 attested on 29-7-1987 (Exh.P.W.4/3), Mutation No,1738 attested on 9-3-1987 (Exh.P.W.4/1), Mortgage Mutation No,1758 attested on 22-8-1987 (Exh.P.W.4/5), Mortgage Mutation No,1791 attested on 4-9-1988 (Exh.P.W.4/6), Mortgage Mutation No,1799 attested on 5-9-1988 (Exh.P.W.4/7), Mortgage Mutation No,1840 attested on 22-4-1989 (Exh.P.W.4/8), and the various documents produced by them (Exh.D.W.1/1, Exh.D.W.2/1 to Exh.D.W.2/18) relating to Cooperative and Agriculture Banks. Also produced copy of Dalbash from Rabeegh 1979 to 1991 (Exh.P.W.3/1) showing the payment of land revenue by various, land owners. Also produced the abstract from register maintained by Irrigation Department copy Exh.D.W.5/1 showing the payment of water rate by various owners. Certain receipts of payments made by the petitioners pertaining to the year 1979 upto 1993 as Exh.D.W.6/2 to Exh.D.W.6/11.
8. The learned counsel for petitioners referred to the Jamabandi for the year 1925-26 (Exh.P.W.1/11) wherein Mst. Khanam Jana daughter of Faqeer Muhammad is recorded without possession, while Muhammad Akbar Khan and others, sons of Nawab Sohbat Khan are also recorded owners with possession in the ownership column while in the cultivation column, Ayeen Khan and Hameedullah Khan are recorded as Ghair Dakhikar through Hazrat Shah. The said entry was carried in ownership column but the entries in cultivation column was changed where Muhammad Siddique has replaced Ayeen Khan in the Jamabandi for the year 1928-30, copy Exh.P.W 1/12. In the next Jamabandi prepared for the year 1933-34, one Abdul Hameed is recorded with no possession in the ownership column alongwith the sons of Nawab Sohbat Khan with possession while in the column of cultivation, Raheem Gul and Zareef Khan are recorded as Ghair Dakhilkar. The entries in the ownership as well as in the cultivation column remained unchanged in the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1937-38 as well as in the Jamabandi for the year 1937-38 (sic). In the foot- note of Jamabandi for the year 1937-38 (Exh.P.W.1/14), there is mention of Lease Mutation No,339 attested on 23-7-1941, whereby the owners with possession namely Khan Bahader Sherdil and Muhammad Akbar Khan etc. Sons of Nawab Mohabbat Khan inducted Muhammad Siddique Ghair Dakhilkar as lessee on the entire land measuring 54 Kanals, 12 Marlas. In the foot-note of Jamabandi for the year 1941-42, there is mention of sale Mutation No,474, attested on 28-1-1946, whereby Abdul Hameed, a recorded owner without possession, alienated the entire land of 54 Kanals, 12 Marlas in favour of Fazal Qayum. Another Mutation (partition) No,487 attested on 16-1- 1948 is also appearing on this deed, whereby private partition between Abdul Hameed out of possession and Muhammad Akbar Khan etc., owners in possession was given effect in Revenue Record. In the Jamabandi for the year 1948-49, copy Exh.P.W.1/16, there is an endorsement of Tamleek Mutation No,540 attested on 13-6-1950 whereby the entire 54 Kanals, 12 Marlas of land under dispute alongwith other Khasra numbers were alienated by Muhammad Akbar Khan in favour of Doctor Ali Muhammad, his son, and was recorded owner in possession of it. (copy of Tamlik Mutation is Exh.P.W.3/1). Fazal Qayum was directed to appear in next tour if he has got some objection over Tamlik. The Tamlik Mutation was entered on 28-4-1950 and attested on 13-6-1950 in the next tour when Fazal Qayum did not turn up. In the subsequent Jamabandi prepared in 1952- 53, Fazal Qayum is recorded in the ownership column without possession, while Doctor Ali Muhammad Khan son of Nawabzada Muhammad Akbar Khan is recorded in ownership column with possession. In the foot-note through Lease Mutation No,609 attested on 14-7-1956, Ali Muhammad Khan owner in possession leased out the entire land in favour of Muhammad Siddique. Alongwith the said entry, there is mention of rescinding of Lease Mutation bearing No,610 attested on 14-7-1956 in favour of Fazal Qayum. In the Jamabandi for the year 1957-58, the predecessor of petitioners alongwith Doctor Ali Muhammad Khan are recorded in ownership column and the name of Fazal Qayum is missing due to Mutation (Exh.P.W.3/1), while in column of cultivation, Muhammad Siddique is recorded as lessee in Khasra No,741 (37 Kanals, 11 Marlas), Khasra No,743 (6 Kanals, 8 Marlas) and Khasra No,744/1 (10 Kanals, 13 Marlas) is recorded as self- cultivation, while Doctor Ali Muhammad Khan, son of Nawabzada Muhammad Akbar Khan, is recorded share-holder in Shamilat. There is an endorsement of Sale Mutation No,616 attested on 25-1-1957 (Exh.P.W.3/2), whereby Ali Muhammad Khan transferred his title in favour of Toor Khan Muhammad and Ghantol, the predecessors of petitioners and the entry regarding Fazal Qayum was again restored as owner without possession. In the bottom of Fard Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 (Exh.P.W.1/19), there is again an endorsement of Sale Mutation No,616 attested on 25-11- 1957. The Tamleek mutation by the predecessors of petitioners in favour of their sons and the mortgage mutation in favour of Agriculture Development Bank or National Bank of Pakistan as well as Revenue Mutations are mentioned in the concerned Jambanadies. The learned counsel for petitioners concluded that the two Courts below have misread the evidence on record and have totally ignored the entries of petitioners predecessors in the ownership column subsequent to the registered sale-deed and sale mutation in their favour. The predecessors of petitioners were not only recorded owners in the relevant column, but they were also put in possession of the suit-land, all the subsequent Jamabandies from 1956-57 are in favour of petitioners. The plaintiffs/respondents have failed to discharge their burden and could not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioners or their predecessors.
9. The learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents contended that concurrent findings of two Courts below are very rarely interfered with only if it is established that material evidence was either non- read or misread by the two Courts below or the impugned judgments suffer for jurisdictional defect. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot be allowed to adduce fresh evidence in the shape of Jamabandies of 1870, 1895, 1896 and 1912-13. He fully supported the impugned judgments and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
10. The actual controversy between the parties is culminated in Issues Nos.9 to 11 and both the parties argued the case on these issues. This is an undisputed fact that the first settlement record in the area was prepared in 1870. The ever first Jamabandi for the year 1870 reveals that Gul Muhammad Khan without possession and Jehangir with possession are recorded in the ownership column without specification of share, while in the column of cultivation, it is recorded Khud Kasht.
In the Jamabandi for the year 1895-96, one Faqir Muhammad without possession son of Gul Muhammad, Lalo Din and Wahab Din sons of Jehangir in equal shares are recorded in the ownership column and in the cultivation column, there is recorded Khud Kasht. If both the entries in the ownership column and column of cultivation are read together in both the Jamabandies, it shall be proved that Jehangir and his sons are recorded owners in possession, while the other recorded owners were out of possession. In the Jamabandi for the year 1912-13, the same entries in ownership column are recorded while in the column of cultivation, one Raqeeb Shah is recorded as Ghair Dakhilkar. This entry also reveals that Umer Din and Wahab Din, sons of Jehangir alienated their title in favour of Khan Bahader Mohabbat Khan through Sale Mutation No,4457 attested on 17- 11-1911. However, there was mentioned that the name of Faqir without possession earlier recorded in Column No,4 shall be recorded in Column No,9 as without possession. Subsequent to that is the Jamabandi for the year 1925-26 wherein Faqir without possession was replaced by Mst. Khanam Jana and Mohabbat Khan was replaced by his sons duly recorded in ownership column with possession. Khasra No,741 is shown under cultivation of one Ayeen Khan as Ghair Dakhilkar, Khasra No,743 in cultivation of Hameedullah Khan and in Khasra No,744/1, one Hazrat Shah is recorded in column of cultivation.
11. The inheritance of Mst. Kharram Jana, a recorded owner, in the relevant column without possession was devolved upon Abdul Hameed through Inheritance Mutation No,1096 attested on 5-3-1934. This mutation is recorded in the remarks column of Jamabandi for the year 1929-30 wherein the entries in ownership column was carried from the previous Jamabandi but in column of cultivation instead of Ayeen Khan, one Muhammad Siddique is recorded. Abdul Hameed alienated his title without possession in favour of Fazal Qayum through Mutation No,474 attested on 28-1-1946. This mutation was given effect in the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1948-49 (Exh.P.W.1/4) wherein Fazal Qayum is recorded as owner without possession alongwith the heirs of Mohabbat Khan with possession in the ownership column, while Muhammad Siddique is recorded as lessee in the cultivation column. The entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 were carried from the previous Jamabandi. However, there is an entry of Lease Mutation No,609, dated 14-7-1956 by Ali Muhammad, the successor of Mohabbat Khan in favour of Muhammad Siddique and the same day another lease rescinding Mutation No,610 of Fazal Qayum is mentioned therein. The Jamabandi for the year 1957-58 is very significant wherein the predecessors of petitioners, namely, Toor, Ghandool and Khan Muhammad are recorded in the ownership column alongwith Doctor Ali Khan as co-owner in Shamilat and there is no entry of Fazal Qayum as owner even without possession. In the Jamabandi for the year 1960-61, once again Fazal Qayum is recorded in the ownership column and the predecessors of petitioners as owners in possession and Ali Khan co- sharer in the Shamilat are recorded in the ownership column 11-A. The plaintiffs/respondents have claimed to derive title from one Abdul Hameed, a recorded owner without possession in the ownership column, while the petitioners claimed to have derived title of the land originally from Mohabbat Khan, a recorded owner in possession deriving such status from the sons of Jehangir, original owner, through Mutation No,2257, attested on 22-11-1917.
This is also evident from the available record that neither the plaintiffs/respondents nor those from whom. They derived the alleged title have ever remained in possession. Right from 1870, the year of settlement, the original owner in whose shoes the predecessor of plaintiffs/respondents have stepped into recorded without possession, while Jehangir, the original owner was recorded in the first settlement as owner in possession. It is well-established principle of law that a vendor cannot transfer a better title than he possesses at the time of transfer. Even if the registered sale-deed No,1012, dated 7-6-1945 which was given effect in the Revenue Record through Mutation No,474 attested on 28-1-1946 (Exh.P.W.3/3) is held to be a genuine document, even then they cannot be granted a decree for the rights not possessed by the vendor of the sale-deed. Conversely, the registered sale-deed in favour of predecessors of the petitioners bearing No,788 dated 3-5-1957 (Exh.P.W.2/D-1) which was given effect in the Revenue Record through Mutation No,616 attested on 25-11-1957 cannot be brushed aside. The predecessors of petitioners have purchased the title of original owner Jehangir who was recorded owner with possession and they were also inducted in possession on the basis of sale-deed. On the one hand, there is a mere title without possession and no specification of share in plaintiffs/respondents favour, while on the other hand the title acquired by the plaintiffs was also accompanied by possession. The two sale-deeds relied upon by the rival claimants herein if looked into juxtaposition, it shall be proved that the sale-deed in favour of petitioners coupled with entries in the ownership column and enjoying physical possession from the date of sale has got more weight and value than the sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs/respondents who are recorded in the ownership column but without possession. The plaintiffs/respondents have miserably been failed to establish that they had ever enjoyed usufruct of the suit-land right from their purchase in the year 1945 till the institution of suit in 1989. The plaintiffs/respondents have never challenged the continuous entry and without break regarding the petitioners in ownership column till this suit. When the learned counsel for petitioners was asked to explain that why the plaintiffs neither questioned the alleged wrong entries nor proceeded in any manner against the persons in possession for 44 long years, he replied that Fazal Qayum vendor was an abnormal and addicted person and not capable of taking care of his rights. This explanation is not found reasonable for the simple reason that when he was capable to purchase the suit-land in 1945, how he was incapable to look after his interest and to seek correctness of the Revenue Record or to proceed for ejectment of the occupants on his purchased land.
12. The petitioners are not only enjoying the physical possession of the suit-land right from the purchase of suit-land by their predecessor, but they have frequently alienated and mortgaged their respective shares in the suit-land from 1983 upto 1989 when the suit was brought on 23-7- 1989 and those mutations were challenged in the instant litigation. Neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court has looked into this aspect of the case in its correct prospective. The impugned judgment is silent altogether regarding these Tamleek or inheritance mutations which are available on file as Exh.P.W.4/1 to Exh.P.W.4/8 (eight mutations). The Appellate Court has not struck down these mutations, rather it is admitted in the judgment that the loans were advanced by the Bank to the petitioners in lieu of mortgage of the suit property, but it is sad that it was for the Revenue Authorities to have clarified from the Bank the nature and interest of the suit property and it was for the Bank to have ascertained the ownership of the petitioners in the suit-land and thus those mortgage mutations for obtaining loan were held to be ineffective against the claim of plaintiffs and the Banks would recover the advanced loans from the petitioners who had mortgaged the suit-land with the Bank.
13. The petitioners have also proved through D.W.3 that they were paying the land Revenue since their purchase of the suit-land as owners. The payment of water rate was also made by the petitioners through D.W.4 and D.W.S. The land Revenue and water rate is payable by the owners.
The deposition of D.Ws. 3 to 5 were not subjected to cross-examination substantially. The two Courts below have also failed to appreciate the aforesaid evidence led by the petitioners/ defendants.
14. The learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents in support of his submissions regarding concurrent findings of the two Courts below relied upon 2003 CLC 116. In the cited judgment, though the Court has observed that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the Court can look into the jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity and in absence of such conditions, the revisional Court cannot reverse the finding of Appellate Court, but it was also observed that erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to be corrected in appeal, but revision is not competent on such ground unless in arriving such conclusion an error of law has been ' committed. On the said proposition, the counsel for plaintiffs/respondents relied upon PLD 1980 Pesh. 40, wherein it was held that the words "acted illegally appearing in section 115, C.P.C. Apply not merely committing of any error of procedure, but also relates to gross and pulpable error of subordinate Courts relating to gross injustice. Also relied on 1994 SCMR 1836, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the following dictum:-- ' "Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could legally set at naught the concurrent findings of two Courts below if it was satisfied that the finding was based on misreading or non-reading of evidence."
15. As regards the production of additional evidence in the shape of Jamabandies for the year 1870, 1895-96 and 1912-13 which are appended with the revision petition, the learned counsel for respondents relied on PLD 2001 SC 401. The facts agitated before the Supreme Court in the cited judgment were totally different and are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case where mere the Revenue Record in the shape of Jamabandies are placed on revision file. The said Jamabandies are not contrary to the subsequent Jamabandies right from 1924-25 till the current Jamabandies when the suit was brought and there are plethora of judgments that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can take additional evidence for the safe administration of justice and equity between the parties. Some of them are recorded as follows:--
(1) 1988 SCMR 1782, (2) 1991 SCMR 2504 and (3) PLD 1993 SC 336.
16. The learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents has also referred to 1977 CLC 1971. In the cited judgment, it was observed that the entries in Record of Rights would be strong piece of evidence in support of persons title to immovable property and ought to be relied upon in absence of circumstantial evidence in rebuttal produced by the opposite party. In the present case, the predecessors of petitioners are recorded in the ownership column specifically mentioning their possession, while the plaintiffs' side is recorded in the ownership column but without possession.
The entries of title in plaintiffs' favour have successfully been rebutted by the petitioners to establish that right from 1956 when their predecessors purchased the suit-land, they are enjoying its usufruct without recognizing any right whatsoever of anybody including the plaintiffs or their predecessors. Thus, the cited judgment is of no use for the plaintiffs/respondents.
17. The long-standing entries in petitioners' favour since their purchase in 1956 and even before that right from first settlement in the area those from whom the petitioners/defendants have derived the title were enjoying possession of the suit-land in exclusion of those from whom the plaintiffs had allegedly derived the mere title. The longstanding silence of the plaintiffs' side since their alleged purchase in the year 1946 till the institution of suit in 1989 and the possession of petitioners/defendants as owners open and hostile would make the petitioners' case of a genuine adverse possession.
18. For the discussion made above, I arrived at the conclusion that the impugned decrees and judgments of two Courts below suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence led by the parties and thus the concurrent findings of two Courts below are found without jurisdiction. The Appellate Court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it properly and has just endorsed the finding recorded by the trial Court.
' Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned decrees and judgments are set aside and suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with no order as to costs.